Atheists, what are your thoughts on us Agnostics?

[NuclearEnergy]

If you know that you can't know or prove that God is real, but you believe anyway (on faith I suppose), you're an agnostic theist. If you know that you can't know or prove God is real, so you don't believe, you're an agnostic atheist. If you don't know whether you believe or don't believe, you're probably just confused; but I suppose 'agnostic' as a noun instead of an adjective would be an appropriate word to describe someone who wavers between believing and not believing. Otherwise it just seems like a smokescreen to deflect from stating whether you do or don't believe in any gods.

That said, if you want to identify as an agnostic, that's your business.

Very interesting way to look at it. I would also like to point out I am still in a way "Transitioning" with this. The concept of agnosticism and atheism are still fairly new concepts for me 

[LostLocke]

...however, I also feel there is no evidence to prove that he does not exist..

That's not your problem. If someone comes to you and says "God exists" it rests on them to prove their case.

[The Grand Nudger]

I would also like to point out I am still in a way "Transitioning" with this. The concept of agnosticism and atheism are still fairly new concepts for me 

What's that like, for you.... I can't even imagine it?

[bennyboy]

Okay, this has been 20 times, but I'll go for round 21.

"Agnostic" means "not knowing." There are many reasons why you might take not knowing as a position, and not all of them fit well with the 2-axis semantic that people here insist on.

The first issue is whether a question is being posed. If someone asks, "Do you think the Biblical God exists?" I will say, "No way, that's an incoherent idea!" If someone asks, "Do you think an intelligent Creator exists?" Then I might fall into a semantic quaqmire-- what IS intelligence? What is order? Was the Universe EVER created? There are so many kinds of not-knowing here that the answer to the question varies mainly with semantics, not with one's world view.

Another is a recognition of the process of arriving at a decisions. If someone asks me whether the hundredth digit of pi is a 7, I'd answer that I don't know. If they said "Okay, so you LACK a belief that it's 7. You'r an a 7-ist!" that would seem pretty strange. I need time to follow through my decision-making process, and making belief statements while that process is ongoing doesn't really make sense-- the answer is wait-and-see. The God question is complicated for some-- they go through rational processes, emotional experiences, philosophical inquiry, and so on, and under whatever definition, do not feel they've arrived at that point in the process at which they can formulate an answer.

Related to this is a false belief we have about the unity of the self: "Do YOU believe in God?" implies that there is one agent; the truth is that the mental processing of people is very complex, and parts of one's mind can simultaneously hold a belief and have a lack of it.

There's also a philosophical position-- that human beings cannot, ever, collect enough evidence to make a sensible answer of the God question. This agnosticism isn't a statement of belief about God, but a statement about the human condition-- it is one intrinsically filled with mystery and ignorance. I'm similarly agnostic about the Big Bang. I've heard arguments for and against it, and in the end, saying that I'm a-Big-Bang-ist, or a-eternal-expansionist or whatever is just not as sensible as the much simpler answer: "I don't know."

[downbeatplumb]

I am agnostic. I take a rather simple approach to this entire God thing. I personally see it as there is really no evidence to prove he exists, however, I also feel there is no evidence to prove that he does not exist. BUT...I do think that the lack of evidence of his existence sort of hints that it is more likely that a God does not exist. I believe it is scientifically irresponsible to say he does exist and vice versa. But like I said, due to the lack of evidence provided for that existence, it seems more likely that there is not a God.

I can understand why one would be an atheist for this reason. It really just does not make much sense for there to be a man in the sky.

I hope I am making sense. 

Yes, I have read the God delusion. It was a very interesting read and I think Richard Dawkins is a very smart man and makes some excellent points. I do think he is sort of an asshole though. [Sorry if I offended anyone with that statement].

I personally preferred "A brief history in time". 

Anyways, I digress.

If you don't believe in god you are an atheist. You may be an atheist because you are unsure, but if you answer no to the question "do you believe in god" you're an atheist.

[Anomalocaris]

I am agnostic. I take a rather simple approach to this entire God thing. I personally see it as there is really no evidence to prove he exists, however, I also feel there is no evidence to prove that he does not exist. BUT...I do think that the lack of evidence of his existence sort of hints that it is more likely that a God does not exist. I believe it is scientifically irresponsible to say he does exist and vice versa. But like I said, due to the lack of evidence provided for that existence, it seems more likely that there is not a God.

I can understand why one would be an atheist for this reason. It really just does not make much sense for there to be a man in the sky.

I hope I am making sense. 

Yes, I have read the God delusion. It was a very interesting read and I think Richard Dawkins is a very smart man and makes some excellent points. I do think he is sort of an asshole though. [Sorry if I offended anyone with that statement].

I personally preferred "A brief history in time". 

Anyways, I digress.

An agnostic seems to be the equivalent of one who takes pride in not voting for Clinton while bitching lyrical about how the world can be so forsaken as to have elected such a calamity as trump.

[FatAndFaithless]

Neat little description of the relationship between atheism and agnosticism.

Agnostic atheism is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.

An agnostic atheist is how I'd describe myself, though with certain definitions of gods I'd feel confident saying they definitely don't exist (a god that violates the laws of logic, for example).

[Anomalocaris]

Who but a Taliban is not agnostic then?

You seem to think the equivalent of the taliban would be somewhat few and far in between in the US

[bennyboy]

I am agnostic. I take a rather simple approach to this entire God thing. I personally see it as there is really no evidence to prove he exists, however, I also feel there is no evidence to prove that he does not exist. BUT...I do think that the lack of evidence of his existence sort of hints that it is more likely that a God does not exist. I believe it is scientifically irresponsible to say he does exist and vice versa. But like I said, due to the lack of evidence provided for that existence, it seems more likely that there is not a God.

I can understand why one would be an atheist for this reason. It really just does not make much sense for there to be a man in the sky.

I hope I am making sense. 

Yes, I have read the God delusion. It was a very interesting read and I think Richard Dawkins is a very smart man and makes some excellent points. I do think he is sort of an asshole though. [Sorry if I offended anyone with that statement].

I personally preferred "A brief history in time". 

Anyways, I digress.

If you don't believe in god you are an atheist. You may be an atheist because you are unsure, but if you answer no to the question "do you believe in god" you're an atheist.

. . . or if you answer, "I don't know."

---

Neat little description of the relationship between atheism and agnosticism.

Agnostic atheism is a philosophical position that encompasses both atheism and agnosticism. Agnostic atheists are atheistic because they do not hold a belief in the existence of any deity and agnostic because they claim that the existence of a deity is either unknowable in principle or currently unknown in fact.

An agnostic atheist is how I'd describe myself, though with certain definitions of gods I'd feel confident saying they definitely don't exist (a god that violates the laws of logic, for example).

Is there any well-formed definition of God about which you are agnostic, or only the general idea?

I'd say I'm gnostic on the absence of Abrahamic gods, Krshna, etc. etc.: I'm a gnostic atheist.  But on the general question "Do you believe God exists?" then I find it very hard to answer that: under some definitions, I may think God is necessary, under others, impossible. It's a kind of quantum superposition, where the answer is determined by how we interact with it, rather than any truth value of its own.

For example, if you say, "God is that which allows for existence rather than non-existence" I'd say it's a pretty unusual definition, but it's necessarily true, and mysterious enough maybe to be worth calling it that.

[downbeatplumb]

If you don't believe in god you are an atheist. You may be an atheist because you are unsure, but if you answer no to the question "do you believe in god" you're an atheist.

. . . or if you answer, "I don't know."

---

Neat little description of the relationship between atheism and agnosticism.


An agnostic atheist is how I'd describe myself, though with certain definitions of gods I'd feel confident saying they definitely don't exist (a god that violates the laws of logic, for example).

Is there any well-formed definition of God about which you are agnostic, or only the general idea?

I'd say I'm gnostic on the absence of Abrahamic gods, Krshna, etc. etc.: I'm a gnostic atheist.  But on the general question "Do you believe God exists?" then I find it very hard to answer that: under some definitions, I may think God is necessary, under others, impossible. It's a kind of quantum superposition, where the answer is determined by how we interact with it, rather than any truth value of its own.

For example, if you say, "God is that which allows for existence rather than non-existence" I'd say it's a pretty unusual definition, but it's necessarily true, and mysterious enough maybe to be worth calling it that.